Re: Adding functionality to a port

Hi!

> > > It is also not correct to "commandeer" a port to force users on design
> > > choices in conflict with the upstream project.

> > Is there a section in the ports maintainers guide or somewhere
> > else that mandates this ?

> Sorry, my fault I did not make me clear maybe, this is all my own opinion.
> So is what follows.
> 
> Anyway I don't see it as a good beahviour to take a port of some upstream
> software and move it in a contrasting direction than the upstream.

I agree. The problem is that this is very difficult to codify
into some policy.

[...]
> The name "ports" implies it is not the place for original development. I
> also agree we often have a disconnection on how things are named and what
> they actually are or behave, so I would not have any strong reply if you
> were to state the the name cannot be held as a reason for policy.

So some sort of rule might be: If the functionality varies from
the upstream-project in a major way, please use a derived or different
name for the port.

-- 
pi@FreeBSD.org         +49 171 3101372                  Now what ?